deespicable me

18 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Baker was in the best players against the Swans apparently.

I reckon he'll be high up on the list to replace +lingers

Just on that game. I watched most of it and thought the players to impress in order were Sparrow, Lockhart, Jones then Chandler then Baker. Rosman looks good as a developing player and does some things that you would think can translate to AFL level but I'm pretty sure he won't be called on this year.

Sparrow deserves a game and I think Lockhart may have passed Nev in the pecking order but he still does some risky things and under extreme heat may be a bit dodgy against a Charlie Cameron so I don't think they'll throw him into the furnace yet, but I would like to see him get a go at some stage and the Salem to the wing is quite a good idea (but dodgy groins and an uninspiring game against the dogs ) may rule that out too. Baker is almost the opposite of Gus in that he hasn't developed his defensive game much at all. You can see he just wants to kick a goal. I'm not convinced with Baker. Chandler is probably third in line behind Sparrow and Jones. 

I think Jones is probably the best choice against a seasoned hard-nosed side like the Lions.

14 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

I will just have to start working the phones tomorrow, call every Alice parliamentarian, numerous calls to CM’s office (numerous voices), demanding they let the game go ahead!

Good work RGRS. A few prank calls to help get through lock-down is an excellent idea. Better than baking sour dough.

I actually hope we can get to the game. I'm pretty engaged with the footy at the moment (obviously) and this game is the real deal. They were fluffers the dogs, with no crowd and their pathetic effort it was an anti-climax but this Friday is the game of the year. Lions are the real deal. I'd love to go.

For all you Hunt, Melksham, Gus and Fritta droppers week on week, I would have to say our worst player tonight was Salem. Shall we drop him?

Salem out, he was awful 

Anyone in

Hows that?

5 minutes ago, Demons1858 said:

He will need a rest at some stage anyhow ... happy it's not soft tissue 

Yeah, I agree. For such a running machine soft tissue injury can ruin your season. He looked bright enough after the game so hopefully not a bad concussion.

 Was starting to think he was becoming dangerously irreplaceable he was playing so well, so it will be good to look at a plan B for the odd occasion he gets stopped. In fact I think they must have put work into stopping his play because he was nowhere near his influential best tonight.

1 minute ago, binman said:

Jones in to play the defensive wing tbat Gus has been playing.

Gus to offensive wing

Gus was great tonight, he is probably a defensive player though and shouldn't be disrupted from his natural game. The amount of times he stopped their releases from the backline was fantastic. A real finals pressure player. Well done.

Can't replace Langdon though, hopefully Sparrow gets a go, Brisbane have real grunt players and Sparrow is a big boy. 

Lots of great match ups, of course the one they all talk about is Trac v Bont, but the match up I'm most looking forward to is Spargo v Daniels.

3 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

"Interpretation" is a bogus concept and it's one of the great con jobs that the AFL has everyone from Gil, Shocking, clubs, coaches, players, media and fans, accepting it as a normal part of the game. I'd like to know when it first reared its ugly head. It's a joke and a travesty.

It's like being at a school where the English teachers can't spell, and the maths teachers can't do arithmetic, and the school manages to convince the pupils and parents that that doesn't matter & it's a normal part of schooling ..... and those pupils & parents accept it as a frustrating but unavoidable part of the school experience.

"Interpretation" is utter bull-sh*t and should be eradicated from the game.

Sure but with the rules as they are at the moment they have to be interpretated. Unless you want to triple the frees being paid. There are quite often 2 or 3 frees at every contest that the umps let go.

You can't get rid of the grey. You have to interpret. When is a free a free. At what point does it become obvious. 

There is always an answer to a maths problem and a correct way to spell but a variety of ways to teach.

You can't lock it down. Unless you throw out the rules, strip it back and start again. (which has merit ).

It was a great game of footy on the weekend. Big crowd, great plays, great players, fast, lots of goals and a ridiculous crazy finish with high drama. I know we were duped but there would be lots of people happy with the game.

I think they need a larger pool of umpires.

So many of them don't show any improvement, don't have a feel for the game and make poor calls.

Quite often the 3 umpires don't work well together and you get different adjudication of exactly the same infringements.

Some weeks you go along and its the week of the baffling ruck frees. I watched a game on the weekend where the umpire bounced the ball in the middle and it sailed up and over one rucks head and should have been recalled as the other ruck couldn't get to the ball. Instead the silly ump pays a free against the ruck whos head the ball sailed over for blocking the other ruck from getting to the ball. Incredible. I just kept rewinding it and laughing.

Then you have the Grundy ruck free in the dying minutes of the Port/Pies game. The ball in is shallow and both rucks with arms intertwined are running in and get their legs caught up and fall over each other. I think the right call was play on ( but who knows maybe thats just because I don't like Collingwood) but it was so hard to judge. It really is a tough game to umpire. Then Brian Taylor is just scurrilous after the game going all dramatic "Ooh gee, I don't know, was it a free? You be the judge."

So many frees are 50/50 and depend on the interpretation of the umpire on hand.

So many frees that should be paid and are genuine frees are missed. 

I would like to see a fair and uncompromised commentator as part of the telecast team, going back over the frees after each quarter or maybe at half time giving viewers numbers of frees for and against, one or two that were missed and one or two really good decisions  and basically making an assessment of who has got the "rub of the green". I'm sick of the commentators blindly backing up the umpires, but of course by the same token they can't go on about the umpires, (like fans do).

I've watched replays at times just watching the umpiring and I was surprised at how good they were. Other times when they get out of sync they can just make bad decision one upon the other. There are bad umpires, and they make all 3 on the field look bad. Imagine having to umpire with someone you just don't agree with. 

If they create a larger pool and re-assess each game properly instead of just saying "yep, good call, well done" they can improve the individual and in turn the 3's umpiring together and the overall standard. A good team of umpires would have got that holding the ball decision against Keays because they back each other up.

I'm glad they came out and acknowledged the mistake. It gives them a chance to improve. 

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

I see our team receiving at least 6 lucky free kicks in any given game.  What about that free kick to Petracca at CHF?  Bit soft?

We've had a good run so far this season (mainly because we've been first in for the ball and have finally decided to play in front)

But not last night ... we were 2nd to the ball and paid a heavy price

By the way, the player in front will receive a free kick 4 out of 5 times (if a free kick is paid)

Hey, I get the passion and most hate losing so much that they feel a screaming need to blame the umpires (the collaberators? ha ha)

I never have and never will blame umpires because my preferred position is did we play well enough to win? (like a coach would analyse things)

Seen the new vision of the so-called deliberate OOB? 

If so, what is your view now?

Yeah sure Macca, we have had a good run with umpiring in many of our early wins. Yeah the decision to Petracca was soft. My view on any deliberate OOB's is always the same. It's a raffle.

I'm worried your aligning yourself with coaches though. We are on a fan forum, you're not a coach any more than anyone here, so no need to try and take the "high" ground. 

I'm not actually talking about last night. Last night is just another example of my life long frustration with umpiring and I'd like to see it improve. This thread allows me an opportunity to put forward my opinion.

My opinion of the game was it was a great game. Tex Walker was fantastic. Doedee's smother in the last qtr was fantastic. I don't think Oliver has played a better game. He was sensational. It was exciting and the crows supporters should be very happy today.

Even neutral supporters would have enjoyed it because we've all known the pain of being robbed by the umpires and would have thought it great to see the undefeated Demons go down in such a way.

But I'm not walking away from the fact that the umpiring affected the result and I think we should try to improve that coz who wants a contest decided by officialdom rather than the contestants?

I think it's important umpires are held accountable. I think when they came out and said they got it wrong in the Geelong game it would have embarrassed the umpire and put pressure on all of the umpires to be clear and accountable, especially in the last frantic minutes of a game. 

So to those who think we achieve little I absolutely don't agree. I think it's important the umpires are held accountable if they are going to improve standards. I definitely want the AFL to come out and put it on record the umpires got it wrong.

 And Macca try explaining away the holding the ball/ incorrect disposal not paid which was clearly very obviously a free. The deliberate OOB is always a raffle, but the holding the ball desicion just before Tex's and the games last goal was an extremely poor and incorrect non-decision.

And as poor as we were or whatever, umpiring was directly responsible in the outcome of the game. No-one should be happy with that.

Geelong are 8 points closer to us than they should be. 8 points.

I understand people saying, we should have been better and if we blame umps for our inability to win the game we are delusional. I also believe that good sides overcome bad umpiring and I remember when we were a poor team and a few frees against and we were out of the contest.

But in an era when almost every sport that has had umpiring issues has evolved and improved their adjudication by technology and ,third umpires etc, to the point where there are very few games decided in the wrong, we are left in the past where our umpiring is not unlike boxing. A joke. 

Surely we are broke now. We have to go to the draft for the next couple of years and squirell away some money for Jacko, Rivers and Kossi. I spose we'll be a destination team for a few years but they will have to come across for peanuts.

Well at least it's after the seniors game so the super sub and emergencies (touch wood) hopefully can play

It was almost like he lost his balance. There was no intent to hurt, there was no hurt.

It's rules one way, then not the other. If you injure a fellow player with what is considered an illegal or poorly judged act then you have to accept the consequences, so surely the opposite should be true. Nothing in it, no injury, no hurt, no reversal of the free to Kossie, play on.

And you can't compare it to Lynch who initiated the attack on his opponent, McDonald was sticking up for Kossie after Ploughman nearly took his neck off. Crude and violent poorly executed tackle. Even then he wouldn't get off or let go of Kossies jumper. If anything it could have been 50 metres but we haven't got to the round where they pay them yet.

15 minutes ago, binman said:

Such calls from dees fans, who i assume actually watch our games. are headache inducing.

Add calls for nibbler to be dropped to that mix.

And I needed a pack of panadol to deal with the suggestion fritter should be dropped after the swans game.

 

I agree. Nibbler should definitely be dropped. Good work Binners.

Well call me a conspiracy theorist, but I've got a theory that this is orchestrated.

You need an excuse to rest someone otherwise you're disrespecting your opponent

Max may not be sore, he may just have lost confidence by giving Jacko too much time at the centre bounces. We got smashed in the clearances, especially when Max was in there, so give him a bigger responsibility. He's been working with Yze and Viney to fix up the clearances and needs time in the middle to sort things out.

Everybody has been wanting Weidemann back in the side and yet Ben Brown needs time in there as well to get match fitness and start gelling with the forward entries. BB out for the Weid is not a good move, this allows Weid back in and  takes the pressure off the call for BB out.

Jacko is young and will only benefit from a couple of weeks off and while we will miss him, the leaders who make the calls and keep structures etc are still out there.

As a conspiracy theorist Its a win, win, win so I have to consider it. I hope if it is the case it doesn't backfire.

There's also a bit of luck. Tom Mac was so good on Saturday night. We handled it well. Goody handled it well. That is obvious by allowing him his chance to prove us wrong without any ill feeling. I had him done. A lot of us did for sure.

He kicked 2 massive goals on Saturday night. They were great. I felt so good for him. He was so happy.

Even after being 9-0 in 2016 North were not considered a premiership contender, they were still about 10-1 to win  the flag and about 4th favorite. Most predicted a drop off and weren't surprised when it came.

Our aim is to finish top 4. So we have to beat the teams around us. Having wins against Richmond, Geelong and Swans are important. Last Saturday nights win was super important. If Swans won its 28 points to us and 24 points to them and they can replace us in the top 4 at some stage. Having won and now being 12 points ahead of the Swans gives us a chance to hold them off in the run home.

A problem for us though is our inability to get an easy win. A kill. Most good teams of the last 20 years had the ability to kill off the contest quickly and then could cruise through a few games. All our games the opposition were well in the game and in many cases ahead. It's good that we found a way to win but we looked cooked in the 4th quarter on Saturday night. The next part of our maturity as a football side is learning how to dominate. If we can't start putting games to bed earlier, we will almost certainly tire and drop off.

12 hours ago, jnrmac said:

So its a free shot on Gawn every single week. They cannon into his back punch him in the back of the head and pile on to him when on the ground.

 

PLay on. No frees, no fines.

 

BS

I'm still non-plussed that Nankervis can come up behind Max off the ball and whacked him in the back while Gawn is unaware and knocks him to the ground. No free, no fine, nothing. Kharma at least caught up with Edwards for raising his elbow and cleaning up Oliver. Suck eggs on your 8 weeks off Edwards.

Are North Melbourne aware that he flops?

Listened to Whateley interview Sam Mitchell today on SEN and eventually after all the adds it was a great interview, with an insight into Sam Mitchell coaching the Box Hill Hawks etc. He along with maybe Yze are the two most likely untried coaches in waiting. It made the constant advertising they subject you to almost worth it.

On the other hand after 7 minutes of mind numbing adds in the afternoon they come back to Maher and Murphy and I want the adds to come back on. Why do Whateley and Murphy team up with such dollops? Murphy had so much credibility before he put money and security in front of being listenable. Now he's just a lazy bloke making up lists with a sycophantic [censored].

Bloody Melbourne media. What happened to quality control.

Hi, just in light of Steven May getting two weeks a year or so ago for standing still, not moving and a player running into him, I'm just wondering how many weeks Edwards should get for lining up Oliver, who had to go off for 10 minutes or so, and raising the shoulder in a deliberate act to hurt Oliver.

Also did anyone see the dog act by Nankervis on Gawn. Off the ball, ran straight into Gawns back, knocking him over and giving him a whiplash type injury, again we are very lucky Gawn shrugged it off but surely Nankervis has a case to answer.

Both acts of thuggery that certainly in Edwards case deserve weeks.

Did others see and agree.

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

Tonight's not the time for the debate, but the question is whether we're getting what we need from Melksham.

Another option is to push TMac up the ground (e.g. replacing Jones) and bring Brown into TMac's forward 50 spot.

These are good, but tough, issues to have to address.

I watched a bit of the Freo/ North game tonight and Zeibel was good off half back. Melksham would be the perfect fit to play the forward negating role on him.

I think a couple of players that you could do comparisons to, are Bontempelli and Adam Goodes. Both are tall, athletic utilities who can play ruck, forward or midfield. Both are/were superstars. Goodes became more a forward towards the end of his career but was used in a variety of positions as the team needed. Bont is similar, not as much a ruck but has taken many ruck taps in the forward line. Bontempelli is only developing now into a very dangerous forward.

Both players are premiership players.

I think Jackson has the same scope as these two players and definitely the potential to become a superstar and play wherever the team needs.   

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

But isn’t it legal to bump a player shoulder to shoulder? Forgive my naivity here, not my wheelhouse.
So he is not guilty of the act, just the outcome as they incidentally clashed heads?

No, some people are missing the fact that the Crows player had handpassed the ball. Dangerfield was late, the ball was gone. If he still had the ball at impact it becomes a different argument. He was concentrating on giving off a handball and was open when Dangerfield cleaned him up. Late. He has to take responsibility for that. It moves from accidental, towards it being a vicious act. You can argue that its not in Dangerfields nature but he chose to do it and didn't execute within the rules of the game. He has to take responsibility for that.